scholarly journals Social Science Mechanics: A Graduate Training Module that “Looks under the Hood” at Innovative Research Designs

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (02) ◽  
pp. 373-377
Author(s):  
Katie A. Cahill ◽  
Michael R. Brownstein ◽  
Amanda E. Burke ◽  
Christopher Kulesza ◽  
James A. McCann

ABSTRACTScholars in the fields of instructional development and pedagogy note that learning outcomes can be improved when teachers use “narratives” to communicate how complex processes work or how problems are addressed. In this article, the authors describe a narrative-centered approach to graduate-level instruction in research methodology. This approach is intended to supplement, not replace, conventional graduate seminars in quantitative or qualitative methods. In a series of lectures, scholars reflected on how their published articles originally were framed, the trade-offs that were necessary to advance the investigation, the methodological challenges and non-findings that had to be addressed—but may not have been printed—and the evolution of a piece as it progressed through the peer-review stages. This approach to exposing graduate students to the entirety of the research process is termedSocial Science Mechanics: A Look under the Hood at Innovative Research Designs. Surveys used to evaluate the series confirmed that graduate students who attended the presentations found them to be highly engaging and beneficial. Many faculty members also attended and found the lectures to be equally instructive.

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. McCann ◽  
Katie Anne Cahill-Rincón ◽  
Michael Brownstein ◽  
Amanda Burke ◽  
Christopher Kulesza

Author(s):  
Nickoal Eichmann-Kalwara ◽  
Frederick Carey ◽  
Melissa Hart Cantrell ◽  
Stacy Gilbert ◽  
Philip B. White ◽  
...  

Increased computational and multimodal approaches to research over the past decades have enabled scholars and learners to forge creative avenues of inquiry, adopt new methodological approaches, and interrogate information in innovative ways. As such, academic libraries have begun to offer a suite of services to support these digitally inflected and data-intense research strategies. These supports, dubbed digital scholarship services in the library profession, break traditional disciplinary boundaries and highlight the methodological significance of research inquiry. Externally, however, these practices appear as domain-specific niches, e.g., digital history or digital humanities in humanities disciplines, e-science and e-research in STEM, and e-social science or computational social science in social science disciplines. The authors conducted a study examining the meaningfulness of the term digital scholarship within the local context at University of Colorado Boulder by investigating how the interpretation of digital scholarship varies according to graduate students, faculty, and other researchers. Nearly half of the definitions (46 percent) mentioned research process or methods as part of digital scholarship. Faculty and staff declined or were unable to define digital scholarship more often than graduate students or post-doctoral researchers. Therefore, digital scholarship as a term is not meaningful to all researchers. We recommend that librarians inflect their practices with the understanding that researchers and library users’ perceptions of digital scholarship vary greatly across contexts.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Wohl ◽  
Gary Alan Fine

Faculty and students recognize that to succeed in graduate school, the ability to read efficiently and with comprehension is crucial. Students must be able to process information newly presented to them, even when that information seems overwhelming. Comprehending, discussing, and utilizing relevant texts are central to the production of scholars. But what constitutes appropriate techniques of reading, when does one employ various strategies, and for what purposes? In a world in which more is assigned than can reasonably be processed, what constitutes a legitimate practice? In this conversation essay, we discuss the role of skimming, building upon an interview study of 36 social science graduate students in history, economics, and sociology. We ask what students believe about the necessity and appropriateness of skimming, how they honed their skills, and what constitutes normative standards. We treat skimming as a form of “legitimate deviance,” necessary for occupational survival but a strategy that is potentially a challenge to an academic self-image. Students learn techniques that allow them to read rapidly and recall information for later use, but the appropriate use of these techniques is rarely discussed openly in graduate training.


Author(s):  
Robert P. Gephart ◽  
Rohny Saylors

Qualitative research designs provide future-oriented plans for undertaking research. Designs should describe how to effectively address and answer a specific research question using qualitative data and qualitative analysis techniques. Designs connect research objectives to observations, data, methods, interpretations, and research outcomes. Qualitative research designs focus initially on collecting data to provide a naturalistic view of social phenomena and understand the meaning the social world holds from the point of view of social actors in real settings. The outcomes of qualitative research designs are situated narratives of peoples’ activities in real settings, reasoned explanations of behavior, discoveries of new phenomena, and creating and testing of theories. A three-level framework can be used to describe the layers of qualitative research design and conceptualize its multifaceted nature. Note, however, that qualitative research is a flexible and not fixed process, unlike conventional positivist research designs that are unchanged after data collection commences. Flexibility provides qualitative research with the capacity to alter foci during the research process and make new and emerging discoveries. The first or methods layer of the research design process uses social science methods to rigorously describe organizational phenomena and provide evidence that is useful for explaining phenomena and developing theory. Description is done using empirical research methods for data collection including case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and collection of texts, records, and documents. The second or methodological layer of research design offers three formal logical strategies to analyze data and address research questions: (a) induction to answer descriptive “what” questions; (b) deduction and hypothesis testing to address theory oriented “why” questions; and (c) abduction to understand questions about what, how, and why phenomena occur. The third or social science paradigm layer of research design is formed by broad social science traditions and approaches that reflect distinct theoretical epistemologies—theories of knowledge—and diverse empirical research practices. These perspectives include positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction (interpretive science). There are also scholarly research perspectives that reflect on and challenge or seek to change management thinking and practice, rather than producing rigorous empirical research or evidence based findings. These perspectives include critical research, postmodern research, and organization development. Three additional issues are important to future qualitative research designs. First, there is renewed interest in the value of covert research undertaken without the informed consent of participants. Second, there is an ongoing discussion of the best style to use for reporting qualitative research. Third, there are new ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. These are needed to better address the interplay of qualitative and quantitative phenomena that are both found in everyday discourse, a phenomenon that has been overlooked.


1999 ◽  
Vol 277 (6) ◽  
pp. S111 ◽  
Author(s):  
J F Zolman

The teaching of research design and data analysis to our graduate students has been a persistent problem. A course is described in which students, early in their graduate training, obtain extensive practice in designing experiments and interpreting data. Lecture-discussions on the essentials of biostatistics are given, and then these essentials are repeatedly reviewed by illustrating their applications and misapplications in numerous research design problems. Students critique these designs and prepare similar problems for peer evaluation. In most problems the treatments are confounded by extraneous variables, proper controls may be absent, or data analysis may be incorrect. For each problem, students must decide whether the researchers' conclusions are valid and, if not, must identify a fatal experimental flaw. Students learn that an experiment is a well-conceived plan for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. They enjoy the interactive evaluations of research designs and appreciate the repetitive review of common flaws in different experiments. They also benefit from their practice in scientific writing and in critically evaluating their peers' designs.


KWALON ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Jing Hiah

Abstract Navigating the research and researchers’ field: Reflections on positionality in (assumed) insider research To challenge rigid ideas about objectivity in social science research, qualitative researchers question their own subjectivity in the research process. In such endeavors, the focus is mainly on the positionality of the researcher vis-à-vis their respondents in the research field. In this contribution, I argue that the positionality of the researcher in academia, what I refer to as the researchers’ field, is equally important as it influences the way research findings are received and evaluated. Through reflections on positionality in my insider research concerning labour relations and exploitation in Chinese migrant businesses in the Netherlands and Romania, I explore how my positionality as an insider negatively influenced my credibility and approachability in the researchers’ field. I conclude that it is necessary to pay more attention to researchers’ positionality in academia as it may shed light on and make it possible to discuss the written and unwritten standards of researchers’ credibility and approachability as an academic in the researchers’ field. Accordingly, this could provide insights into the causes of inequalities in academia and contribute to the current challenge for more diversity in academia.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Alan Fine ◽  
Hannah Wohl ◽  
Simone Ispa-Landa

Purpose This study aims to explore how graduate students in the social sciences develop reading and note-taking routines. Design/methodology/approach Using a professional socialization framework drawing on grounded theory, this study draws on a snowball sample of 36 graduate students in the social sciences at US universities. Qualitative interviews were conducted to learn about graduate students’ reading and note-taking techniques. Findings This study uncovered how doctoral students experienced the shift from undergraduate to graduate training. Graduate school requires students to adopt new modes of reading and note-taking. However, students lacked explicit mentorship in these skills. Once they realized that the goal was to enter an academic conversation to produce knowledge, they developed new reading and note-taking routines by soliciting and implementing suggestions from advanced doctoral students and faculty mentors. Research limitations/implications The specific requirements of the individual graduate program shape students’ goals for reading and note-taking. Further examination of the relationship between graduate students’ reading and note-taking and institutional requirements is warranted with a larger sample of universities, including non-American institutions. Practical implications Graduate students benefit from explicit mentoring in reading and note-taking skills from doctoral faculty and advanced graduate students. Originality/value This study uncovers the perspectives of graduate students in the social sciences as they transition from undergraduate coursework in a doctoral program of study. This empirical, interview-based research highlights the centrality of reading and note-taking in doctoral studies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
Thees F Spreckelsen ◽  
Mariska Van Der Horst

Significance testing is widely used in social science research. It has long been criticised on statistical grounds and problems in the research practice. This paper is an applied researchers’ response to Gorard's (2016) ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). He participates in this debate concluding from the issues raised that the use and teaching of significance testing should cease immediately. In that, he goes beyond a mere ban of significance testing, but claims that researchers still doing this are being unethical. We argue that his attack on applied scientists is unlikely to improve social science research and we believe he does not sufficiently prove his claims. In particular we are concerned that with a narrow focus on statistical significance, Gorard misses alternative, if not more important, explanations for the often-lamented problems in social science research. Instead, we argue that it is important to take into account the full research process, not just the step of data analysis, to get a better idea of the best evidence regarding a hypothesis.


1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim May

Attention to reflexivity is often assumed to be the means through which the assumptions and values of social scientists may be uncovered. Researchers are thus called upon to position themselves explicitly in terms of their place within the research process in order that their interpretations may be assessed according to situated aspects of their social selves. Taking a reconstructive social science as one whose aim is to examine our pre-theoretical knowledge in the spirit of producing more adequate accounts of the social world, this article seeks to make sense of these ideas in relation to their consequences for producing an engaged practice and body of knowledge.


2005 ◽  
Vol os-22 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-55
Author(s):  
James L. Williams ◽  
Daniel G. Rodeheaver

In light of the increasing emphasis on the use of instructional technology in higher education, sociology graduate students need to become conversant with instructional technology and its pedagogical implications. Yet, the literature on graduate instructor training has almost completely neglected this issue. This paper directly addresses this important pedagogical issue. After a discussion of the benefits of instructional technology training, we describe how to integrate training in instructional technology into graduate training programs in sociology. Our discussion offers specific suggestions for incorporating instructional technology training throughout the instructor training process. Our recommendations focus on helping graduate students employ effectively instructional technology and to become conversant with its pedagogical implications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document